Injunction filed vs Nagaland commercial bldg fronting Naga Ruins

A civil case for injunction was filed to stop the construction of the Enrile family owned-Nagaland Development Corporation’s new 2-storey commercial building that would block the front or main street view on Peñafrancia Avenue in barangay San Francisco of Naga City’s only two remaining Spanish-era civil building ruins which were declared as Important Cultural Properties (ICPs) by the City Government of Naga (CGN). The latter is however also impleaded as a defendant along with Nagaland for having issued to it the building permit, which the injunction complaint seeks to have initially suspended and then finally revoked.

The case was filed last January 28 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, now with Branch 24 which has set it for initial hearing on February 9. The four plaintiffs are all from the legal profession, including two retired RTC Naga Judges and one who is also an architect. The two retired Judges are Soliman Santos Jr. and Leo Intia. They are joined by private law practitioner of long good standing Luis Ruben General and architect-lawyer Winstoney Marie Salceda-Mazo. The plaintiffs filed the case primarily on the basis of the RA 7356 provision on “the duty of every citizen to preserve and conserve the Filipino historical and cultural heritage and resources,” and secondarily as jurisprudence-based “Legal Guardians and Responsible Stewards” of the two Naga Ruins.

The injunction complaint alleges that the Nagaland commercial building fronting the Naga Ruins and the building permit issued for it by the CGN are “contrary to law, public policy, justice, and equity.” In particular, it is an “offense against historic/ heritage sites and structures” under the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) Guidelines, Policies and Standards for the Conservation and Development of Historic Centers/ Heritage Zones. Such a heritage offense includes “visual obstruction” and “competition (a structure that competes with or subordinates a historic/ heritage structure), aside from “over-commercialism” and adjacent “heavy construction.”

The complaint alleges that these offenses will prejudice “the heritage value and importance, in other words, the heritage justice,” that is due the Naga Ruins ICPs. They are part of “the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources” that the Constitution mandates the State to “conserve, promote, and popularize.” Such mandated promotion and popularization of the Naga Ruins would be defeated by the frontal visual obstruction and competition by a new dominant commercial building along the whole lot frontage of the lot where they are located. Conservation pertains not only to physical integrity but also to visual integrity.

Naga City Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) Resolution No. 2024-264 had already declared the Naga Ruins “as important cultural properties (ICPs) as they hold local historical, socio-cultural and architectural significance and therefore are [an] invaluable part of the city’s rich heritage and history.” The two old buildings were variously used as a Barracks (Cuartel) and a Storehouse (Almacen), as an Administraccion del Correo complex with postal office and telegraphic station, as charitable foundation, as prison of the city or of the province, as torture chamber, as war room, as infirmary, as hospital, as schools superintendent’s office, as public library, among others. All these during two centuries of history, culture and life in Naga City from 1826 during Spanish rule, American rule, the Commonwealth period, the Japanese occupation, and the post-war independent Third Republic of the Philippines up to the more recent decades of rapid urban development. This year 2026 would be the bicentennial of the original Almacen, if it could only survive.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Nagaland Plan for a “Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex” for the whole lot with its whole frontage occupied by the “Paseo de Nueva Caceres commercial strip” will entail cementing the whole lot, including around the two old buildings to be purportedly conserved by adaptive reuse. This over-cementing would aggravate Naga City post-Typhoon Kristine floodings in that area near the Naga River, contrary to Mayor Leni Robredo’s policy issuances for a “Flood-Resilient City” and more “open spaces, with thriving trees and gardens becoming part of our collective lives.” This relates more fundamentally to the constitutional “right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” As it is, several Enrile family malls, hotels and cafes are found just across the street from the Ruins.

Nagaland is already two months into ground preparation for the construction of its new commercial building fronting the Naga Ruins after the CGN issued the building permit for it in November 2025. As it is, one will readily see there at the lot frontage and near the Ruins, these accomplished facts on the ground: a big back hoe that is used for ground diggings and excavations; actual ground diggings and excavations, with several deep holes; a number of preliminary small posts or piles erected on the ground; a cement mixer, and many bags of cement lined up near one of the Ruins; G.I. sheets makeshift buffer but very close to the two old building ruins; a big shipping container used for storage near the old Storehouse (Almacen); and use of the old Barracks (Cuartel) as makeshift barracks for the construction workers. Once the cement starts to pour, it will be that much harder to undo.

And so, the plaintiffs have resorted to a judicial remedy, that of a civil case for injunction, with application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction, to stop the construction of the Nagaland commercial building and for CGN to suspend first then later revoke the building permit. This resort to the Court came after the plaintiffs wrote two letters to Mayor Robredo in December 2025 in order to exhaust administrative remedies on the said matters at her level, but to which there was no response at all for more than a month.

The last letter to Mayor Robredo on December 23 urgently requested for three decisive and prompt measures in the best interest of all concerned: [1] temporarily suspend the building permit (and therefore the ongoing construction ground preparation) in the meantime to give way to the soonest exploration of other options or better alternatives; [2] particularly explore a mutually acceptable lot swapping arrangement with Nagaland; and if none, [3] explore the next best alternative for its commercial building to be positioned elsewhere in the big 4,991 square meters lot in a way that does not block the frontal or main street view of the Naga Ruins. The complaint itself does not preclude court mediation whereby such alternatives may no longer be ignored but instead more seriously explored as could lead to an equitable and amicable solution to the controversy.